This is a tough one to address because I do not, in any way, shape or form, condone the destruction of anybody’s property, including “Posted” or “No Trespassing” signs.

LD 557, with amendments, has passed the Maine Legislature that, in summary, states: “The hunting and fishinglicenses of a person convicted of destroying, tearing down, defacing or otherwise damaging a property posting sign in violation of section 10652, subsection 1, paragraph B must be revoked, and that person is ineligible to obtain a hunting or fishing license for a period of one year from the date of conviction.”

There should be laws that protect a landowner from such destruction, and there probably are. Piling on to prove a point, while it might be a bit understandable, particularly to a frustrated land owner, cannot be justified by targeting a specific sector of the general public to punish that group for a law violation more than any other member of the public that is not part of the hunting and fishing community.

Even in testimony given in support of the law, a landowner states that he believes the majority of sign destruction comes from “hunters” shooting up his signs, but also admits destruction of his property, other than just signs, is being carried out by many different individuals and groups of individuals. Is it then constitutional to increase punishment on one group over others? I think not!

I’m not a lawyer but you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand that this law is not right. I am surprised that the Maine Legislature, the Governor, the Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife and others supported this law and could not see that it violates the constitutional rights of licensed hunters and licensed fishermen.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not looking for a dismissal of lawful punishment for the willful act of property destruction, protected by Maine law. However, in order to be justified in taking away the licences of hunters and fishermen for one year, then one must ask what is the punishment for the same kind of destruction that might be carried out by a snowmobiler, an ATVer, a hiker, a berry picker, etc.?

I believe the term that might apply to such an egregious violation of due process, can be found in Supreme Court cases that involve “unconstitutional animus.” If you Google that term, you can spend hours reading about what this term is and how it affects all of us. In brief, unconstitutional animus is a violation of equal protection under the law. In this case a hunter or fisherman, is not afforded the same due process and equal protection as someone else who might commit the same crime.

As a society we have been programmed to believe that the more draconian our laws are the more of a deterrent it is to prevent the crime in the first place. Whether that is true or not, I do not have the data to show one way or another. All drivers of automobiles that violate the law by speeding, are subject to the same set of laws and punishments. Would it be considered the right thing if hunters and fishermen were targeted for greater punishment because somebody believes them to speed more than other groups or individuals? This is what this new law allows.

This bill needs to be repealed and a different, constitutional approach taken in order to protect the rights of all people to ensure equal protection under the law, due process and to stop the obvious discrimination this law allows.

Utter nonsense! In France, where wolves, or rather mostly hybrid, mongrel, wild dogs, are protected, attacks and private property destruction continues to grow and escalate. In 2012, 5,799 domestic herds were destroyed. In 2013, that number grew to 5,864 and, during the same time periods, in 2014, a total of 7,535 animals were destroyed.

It is becoming more common to read and see events such as the one where a person’s young colt gets slaughtered by wolves, among other assorted property losses, attacks on humans and the spread of deadly disease, and yet the perverts continue to defy sanity and plan to place more of them useless, disease-infested, criminal animals onto the landscape. Not only is the continued act a substantiation of insanity, it is very telling that such action is a tool for the destruction of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What was once white is black, what was right is wrong. Everything is the opposite of what was once taught. And among the insanity, we read press releases like the one below, in which officials plan to release more useless, mongrel, hybrid, mixed-breed canine killers into the countryside.

From the Arizona Game and Fish Department:

NEWS RELEASE

For immediate release, Feb. 14, 2014

Plan announced for 2014 Mexican wolf releases in Arizona
Releases to replace wolves illegally shot between 2011 and 2013

PHOENIX – The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) have initiated actions for the release of two Mexican wolves in Arizona to replace wolves illegally shot, as directed by the Arizona Game and Fish Commission in 2012 and to increase the genetic diversity of the wild population.

The Mexican Wolf Interagency Field Team (IFT) tasked with the day-to-day management of the wild population captured two wild males during the January winter population count. M1249 was taken to the Service’s Sevilleta Wolf Management Facility in New Mexico and is paired with a captive female wolf. M1290 was paired with a captive female wolf and is being held in a release pen in the Apache National Forest.

Neither of the male wolves has documented involvement in livestock depredations or nuisance behavior, making the animals good candidates for pairing with a captive female and subsequent release. Both wolf pairs are being observed for breeding behavior and will be released into the primary recovery zone in Arizona in the spring prior to giving birth.

“This is one of the important steps in Game and Fish’s commitment to replace the four wolves lost to illegal causes between 2011 and 2013. One of the key considerations when the options were evaluated was to improve population genetics, which is important to the long-term survival of the subspecies,” said Jim deVos, the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s assistant director for wildlife management.

An additional option to replace wolves illegally shot and to increase the genetic diversity of the wild population – cross fostering wolf pups born in captivity into a wild wolf pack litter – still remains under consideration and will be evaluated in the future.

“The pairing of genetically valuable females with males with wild experience accomplishes two goals, adding genetically valuable genes into the population and replacing wolves that were taken illegally,” said Benjamin Tuggle, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Southwest Regional Director. “If these pairs successfully establish themselves in the wild, they will increase population numbers immediately and will contribute to a more genetically robust population in the future.”

In 2013, the IFT attempted the release or translocation of two pairs of wolves and a single wolf into the Blue Range Wolf Recovery Area. A single male was released into Arizona and recaptured in New Mexico shortly after release for displaying nuisance behavior. Plans to release a pair of wolves in Arizona were halted when another pack displayed territorial aggression and threatened the safety of the new pair. That pair was returned to captivity. In addition, a pair of wolves was translocated into the Gila Wilderness of New Mexico. However, the male dispersed outside of the recovery area boundary and was recaptured, and the female was later legally shot and killed on private land in the act of killing livestock.

Release sites will be chosen based on several factors including appropriate prey density, distance from occupied residences, seasonal absence of livestock grazing, and occurrence of established wolf packs in the area.

The Mexican wolf population is estimated to be at least 83 animals, the highest number of wolves since the reintroduction began in 1998.

Rep. Judy Boyle of Idaho has sponsored a bill that would add $4.00 to the purchase price of a wolf hunting permit and then take $8.00 from each wolf tag sold to be placed into a fund to help pay the cost of livestock losses to ranchers.

Are you kidding me?

Such a bill has to be either the most in-your-face, brassy and ballsy act a politician can muster against hunters or the complete opposite; a display of unselfish charity, the kind most seldom ever seen on this earth anymore!

In your face? In Idaho there is a situation that exists in which many, if not most, hunters are so angry about wolves, and many of the same consider the action taken in the mid-90s to (re)introduce wolves into the state a criminal enterprise, resulting in the greatest destructive act against wildlife and game hunting opportunities. And now, a bill proposes to tap hunters to pay for the destruction of the game animals they hunt. Isn’t this just about as ridiculous as you can get?

Charity? Perhaps I have been so angered and frustrated over the years of deliberate game destruction, the loss of hunting opportunities, threats of the harmful spread of deadly disease, reduced public safety and loss of property, all because of wolves, that it’s difficult to muster up a real Christian attitude and overlook all of this and direct my love and devotion to the losses having been suffered by the ranchers. I’m not Christ. I’m human!

I have nothing against ranchers and have certainly spent my share of time defending them and supporting the idea of reimbursing them for losses. But I fail to understand why this responsibility to pay ranchers for their losses should fall to the hands of those who want to buy a license to hunt a wolf. Surely the majority of hunters don’t hunt wolves out of the love of the sport. Isn’t it more out of a want to get rid of the damned animals in order to bring back elk, deer and moose populations in those areas where the wolf has had a field day? Why not tax every dollar donated to the environmental groups mostly responsible for wolf introduction? Isn’t that justice?

When you think about this bill, isn’t it akin to asking members of Mothers Against Drunk Driving to pay for property damage caused by drunks behind the wheel of a car? What am I failing to see here?

If my sense of charity is so terribly diminished that I can’t and should be eager to pay another $4.00, that I have little confidence the government isn’t going to steal for other purposes, then I pray to God He will show me that I am wrong.